I can see his point. As a businessperson, he and his siblings have to think about the resale value of the team. Since the Cubs are one of the few (if not the only, I don't know the situation at all other 29 parks) teams with significant parking revenue, they need to make it up somehow. The reason for this is because all the MLB teams will, in the next few years, get into lucrative televsion/media contracts. For the Cubs to remain financially competitive without the benefit of 10,000+ cars parking in their lots 81 days a year, they need the revenues from in-game advertising. While you can say the Ricketts have all the money in the world, when it comes time to sell the team, potential buyers will want a team that have enough revenue streams so they can compete financially with the other clubs.

__________________
Things that make you go "Hmmmmm:" Aaron Rowand and Kris Bryant have never been seen in the same room at the same time.
‎

I can see his point. As a businessperson, he and his siblings have to think about the resale value of the team. Since the Cubs are one of the few (if not the only, I don't know the situation at all other 29 parks) teams with significant parking revenue, they need to make it up somehow. The reason for this is because all the MLB teams will, in the next few years, get into lucrative televsion/media contracts. For the Cubs to remain financially competitive without the benefit of 10,000+ cars parking in their lots 81 days a year, they need the revenues from in-game advertising. While you can say the Ricketts have all the money in the world, when it comes time to sell the team, potential buyers will want a team that have enough revenue streams so they can compete financially with the other clubs.

It seems to me they have every right to block their view, at least after the deal ends. Haven't looked enough to see if they have grounds for doing it now.

I'm still curious why MLB hasn't stepped in at any point. Did the Cubs get MLB's approval when they signed the original deal with the rooftop owners, because it sure seems like the rooftops are stealing MLB's product, not the Cubs? If the Cubs didn't, that would seem like a major trump card that the Cubs could try to play - or have MLB play - IMO. Granted, I know nothing of the laws regarding this, contracts, etc., I just thought it was always funny that the deal was with the Cubs, not MLB.

Don't the rooftop owners just have to give 17 percent to the Cubs? I mean, I haven't seen the contract. But maybe the Cubs are just like, "Yeah. We will take 17 percent of the now way smaller pot. We don't care."

Do you really think that if the Cubs move to Rosemont into a new say $650M+ stadium that would be designed to be a modern version of Wrigley that people wouldn't come? I know it might be wishful thinking on some people's part, but there are plenty of Cubs fans who would love to visit a fast-developing entertainment hub complete with a casino, hotels, restaurants and entertainment. All Ricketts is asking is that he be allowed to manage his business. And if push comes to shove, you better believe the city will want to keep the Cubs in place with all the tax revenue the #3 tourist attraction in the state brings in (not to mention the projected extra $20M a year).